Okay no problem. We find these ignorant simpletons and seize any and all technology benefiting their everyday life which has roots in the scientific breakthroughs of the 19th and 20th centuries. Not just computers but cars, kitchen appliances, everything. You don't believe (HAHA WTF?) in science? You don't get to use its fruits of labor. Go away and live in a cave. Let's see how they like that, eh?

The numbers are definitely depressing but I feel like 1000 people is a really small sample size. I just want to believe that there is some selection bias going on or the people answering are intentionally messing with the poll.

Challenging someones religiously based belief is widely regarded as somewhat offensive, especially if that person is well meaning, but perhaps misguided about say the ages of the earth, or why monkeys don't give birth to humans. I feel like this is starting to change, but really it just requires more people to turn to their religious peers and say 'hey, you are wrong and setting us all back' .

As usual, there were problems with evolution. Thirty-one percent accepted that life on Earth (including humans) evolved, while 43 percent doubted it. But there was what you might call micro-acceptance of some aspects of evolution: 65 percent of those polled accepted the idea that antibiotic overuse led to drug-resistant bacteria.

Translation: People will fully embrace aspects of biology which, having built their foundations on our understanding of natural selection, adaptation and evolution, have rendered knowledge that is of tangible benefit to the layperson. Knowledge that is of (mostly) academic benefit can be dismissed because their preacher simply tells them that it's incorrect.

That's the cognitive dissonance that you often encounter with people who reject scientifically-established concepts like our 4+ billion-year-old planet, the evolution of all of the species upon it or the climate change that it's undergoing (at least partially) by our doing.

Where the scientific method yields medical technologies that can save their lives or communications technologies that make their work more efficient or their recreation more enjoyable? People have no problem accepting the underlying scientific theories.

Does any religious person who flies think that their chosen deities or principalities pick up the airplane at the point of origin and place it down gently at the destination? There may be some real crackpots that do, but I've never met them. No, the vast majority of religious people who fly on airplanes accept the theories of gravitation and motion, the concepts behind modern aeronautics, etc.--all things arrived at using the scientific method, and theories developed (often) in the teeth of religious opposition.

But there's a disconnect when they can't directly benefit from a theory (or perceive that they can't directly benefit from a theory).

Cartman: "Are you are saying that 1/4th of Americans are retards?"Kyle: "Yes, I'm saying 1/4th of Americans are retards."Stan: "At least 1/4th"Kyle: "Lets take a sample. There's four of us. You're a retard. That's 1/4th"

Of course, that latter effort was aided by a bit of personal experience and self-interest; everybody cares about their health, as the wide acceptance of the evolution of antibiotic resistance shows.

But with the caveat that...

Quote:

Only about half of the people accepted that vaccines are safe and effective, with 15 percent doubting.

The "trouble" with vaccines is that they have been too successful. People don't remember a time when now preventable diseases caused serious illness, disability or even death.

You might point out that only 15% are actually doubters but considering the need for herd immunity this is troubling.

Or people have a concept of a vaccine to which current medications labelled as 'vaccines' do not conform. The guardasil, flu, and the anthrax vaccine don't prevent HPV, the flu, or anthrax the same way the smallpox vaccination or tetanus shot does. The flu vaccine doesn't work for any given individual in a highly valuable way, it's only value is when you've innoculated lots of people, you prevent *some* infections. This sort of blurred definition of a vaccine highlights the myth of herd immunity relative to an individual.

In many of the major outbreaks of whooping cough and measles in the past couple years, the many victims and carriers were vaccinated, many of the deaths occurred in those who couldn't be vaccinated. It can easily be observed why the lay person might be skeptical of the unbridled ubiquity of vaccines. http://news.sciencemag.org/health/2014/ ... first-time

I think there are vaccines that 100% of the population should get. I also think it's foolish to whole-heartedly acknowledge anti-biotic resistance bacteria and the problem they cause and then buy in whole-hog on any vaccine that comes down the pike.

I don't really get all the hate here, but anways. I don't think it's weird to see that science that questions the validity of one's personal faith and worldview is less accepted then science that questions unhealthy habits like smoking, which have nothing to do with personal conviction. Just shouting "science" doesn't make the reality of people having worldviews go away, nor does it help in any way to help these people to adjust them. Is it too hard to accept that faith is important for many people for non-scientific reasons? I doubt that ridiculing people helps getting them to see another position. And personally I find it very disrespectful.

The "trouble" with vaccines is that they have been too successful. People don't remember a time when now preventable diseases caused serious illness, disability or even death.

One of my moron co-workers told me that "she'd never heard of anyone dying of measles".

Unfuckingbelievable.

This is the crux of the issue. The general public is not scientifically aware but considers themselves pretty astute. We as humans find it easier to wrap our minds around the tangible, experienced reality around us. But when it comes to extrapolating that to a more abstract and less tangible 4.5bn yr old Earth, or evolution for example, doubts creep in.

I think it's because average Joe (or Jane) feels they can't verify the information for themselves. This might explain the people who think the Sun goes round the Earth, they think they're seeing this happen every day and may perceive this as an equally valid perspective as the Earth going round the Sun?

Bottom line, more investment in education (unadulterated by religion) is required. I think this applies globally BTW, not just in the US.

The "trouble" with vaccines is that they have been too successful. People don't remember a time when now preventable diseases caused serious illness, disability or even death.

One of my moron co-workers told me that "she'd never heard of anyone dying of measles".

Unfuckingbelievable.

I came by my measles and chickenpox immunity naturally. Plenty of parts of the world come by their hepatitis A immunity the same way. Not saying she's right to advise or prevent anyone from getting a measles vaccine, but her vaccines and her family are her choice.

Aren't these the people that we intellectuals mock as they are naturally selected? If they aren't naturally selected and end up out (re)producing us, what does that say about our intelligence from an evolutionary standpoint?

Weilding a double-edged sword as though it were single-edged is pretty dumb too.

Question: Leepers have been legally separated as plague bearers from the general population in the past, now chances are that people who refuse vaccination are an even greater public health risks, can we force them to wear signs or something?

The numbers are definitely depressing but I feel like 1000 people is a really small sample size. I just want to believe that there is some selection bias going on or the people answering are intentionally messing with the poll.

One of the biggest misconceptions by people with little statistical background.

I feel like 1000 people is a really small sample size. I just want to believe that there is some selection bias going on

As stated in the article, this sample size is sufficient for a 3% margin of error. There is a great deal of irony, in that you are questioning the validity of the science behind a poll on questioning the validity of science.

Not saying she's right to advise or prevent anyone from getting a measles vaccine, but her vaccines and her family are her choice.

Saying her family is her choice... Children aren't the property of their parents, and refusing vaccination really does come close to being child abuse, IMO. Bringing back diseases that should by all rights be extinct shouldn't be a parental right.

I took a look at the linked PDF and I think the author is misinterpreting the survey. Specifically, I think it's misleading to call some of those surveyed "doubters". There was no answer choice on the survey that indicated "doubt". Rather, the following choices were provided:

* Extremely/very confident* Extremely confident* Very confident* Somewhat confident* Not too/not at all confident* Not too confident* Not at all confident

While it is true 30% of those surveyed were "Not at all confident" that the "The universe began 13.8 billion years ago with a big bang", that could simply because those surveyed did not know exactly when the big bang happened.

If you told me that your dog's name is Peaches, and then asked me to pick one of the choices on the survey, I would pick "Not at all confident". It's not that I don't believe you, it's that I'm not confident. That's an important distinction, and I think it's one that gets missed in this article. Sure, it may be more attention-grabbing to say that 30% of Americans doubt the big bang, but if anything they just don't know.

Not saying she's right to advise or prevent anyone from getting a measles vaccine, but her vaccines and her family are her choice.

Saying her family is her choice... Children aren't the property of their parents, and refusing vaccination really does come close to being child abuse, IMO. Bringing back diseases that should by all rights be extinct shouldn't be a parental right.

With regard to the mental illness issue, I think that from a scientific perspective we need to be careful in stating categorically that reality is limited to that which we can currently measure or have a good understanding of. We don't really know what causes many types of mental illness, although there is clearly a biochemical process going on in many that can respond to medicinal intervention. Perhaps all the causes will be explained by processes that we already know and our tools are too blunt. I don't think we are there yet.

To avoid confusion, with regard to the Big Bang, geological age and evolution of some form, the evidence seems quite clear from my perspective that we have a good understanding of the physical processes involved. Purpose, however, is not covered by Science.

[In many of the major outbreaks of whooping cough and measles in the past couple years, the many victims and carriers were vaccinated, many of the deaths occurred in those who couldn't be vaccinated. It can easily be observed why the lay person might be skeptical of the unbridled ubiquity of vaccines. http://news.sciencemag.org/health/2014/ ... first-time

Only if they, like you apparently, didn't bother to actually read the article that you linked to.

Nice job missing the point of that article (that unvaccinated people put even vaccinated people at risk by circulating the disease) and expanding an article about one case ("Measles Outbreak Traced to Fully Vaccinated Patient for First Time") into "many major outbreaks".